SD Men Over "Ladies' Night", Win Settlement

[Guest]

I don't know quite how to react to this story. Form your own conclusions.

Bars, clubs forced to drop promotions in face of lawsuits

By Alex Roth
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

August 3, 2003



SEAN M. HAFFEY / Union-Tribune
Christy Dirksen (left) and Debbie Murphy enjoy a drink at the Martini ranch in the Gaslamp Quarter. The club recently paid $20,000 to settle a lawsuit over its ladies night promotion. It might seem like a harmless marketing stunt, although some lawyers will tell you it's an insidious form of anti-male discrimination. Either way, it's now history in the Gaslamp.

It might seem like a harmless marketing stunt, although some lawyers will tell you it's an insidious form of anti-male discrimination. Either way, it's now history in the Gaslamp Quarter.

Several local bars and clubs have been forced to drop their so-called ladies night discount-for-women promotions in response to a series of lawsuits claiming the practice discriminates against men.

Lawyers quietly settled all the suits last month. Seven nightspots in the Gaslamp and elsewhere in San Diego County agreed to pay a total of $125,000 to two men who accused them of violating a decades-old California civil-rights law.

Gone are the Thursday promotions at Olé Madrid on Fifth Avenue, whereby women – and only women – were allowed free entry before 11 p.m. Gone are the occasional cover-charge discounts for women at the 5ifth Quarter bar down the block. As a result of the settlement, there's now a permanent halt to similar marketing gimmicks at the Martini Ranch and Have A Nice Day Cafe in the Gaslamp, the Pure Nightclub in Kearny Mesa, Fusion dance club in Escondido and Neimans in Carlsbad.

In court filings, lawyers for the two men called ladies night promotions "a pervasive problem throughout California."

All of which sounds pretty ridiculous to Robert Lane, a co-owner of the 5ifth Quarter, who said his nightspot offered the promotions for a simple reason: They're good for business.

"Guys are going to come wherever the women are," Lane said.

The lawsuits were filed earlier this year on behalf of two men who spent time trying to get ladies night discounts at a variety of bars and nightclubs, only to be rebuffed and "laughed at," according to the suits.

One of the men is a California Western School of Law classmate of the two lawyers who filed the suits on their behalf. The other is a paralegal.

When asked about the social merits of these lawsuits, Erik Jenkins, one of the attorneys who filed the suits, made comparisons between ladies night discounts and the discrimination faced by African-Americans in the South.

Asked whether he plans to file any more such suits around the state, Jenkins said, "I couldn't get into our plans for future lawsuits without divulging confidential client information."

Asked to respond to the nightclubs' lawyers complaint that the suits were frivolous, Jenkins cited the language of the state's Unruh Civil Rights Act, which guarantees "full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileged, or services" regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, disability – and gender.

The law, apparently, is squarely on his side. In 1985, the California Supreme Court ruled that ladies night discounts violate the Unruh Act. The opinion was written by Rose Bird, the high court's chief justice at the time, who cited the "clear and unambiguous" language of the statute.

"The legality of sex-based price discounts cannot depend on subjective value judgments about which types of sex-based distinctions are important or harmful," the chief justice wrote.

The opinion faded into history – and the tradition of ladies night revived itself, which is self-evident to anyone who's ever embarked on a pub crawl in San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco or any smaller city in between.

Every so often, however, somebody decides to sue. And the penalties for violating the Unruh Act can be staggering. Each incident of gender-based discrimination carries a $4,000 fine.

Enter Steven Surrey and Alfred Rava. Earlier this year, the men spent several nights in the Gaslamp and other San Diego County nightspots, seeking out ladies night promotions and demanding equal treatment.

On March 6, Rava stood in front of Ole Madrid and informed a bouncer that "Ladies night promotions violated his civil rights," according to the court documents. "In response to his comments, one of the doorpersons stated that Mr. Rava should go contact the ACLU."

By early spring, the two men and their attorneys had filed a barrage of lawsuits in San Diego Superior Court. It quickly became apparent that the nightclubs were on the losing side of this legal battle – and that fighting would be pointless and expensive. Under the law, if the plaintiffs win, not only are they entitled to damages but the losing parties must pay their legal costs.

"Everybody was amazed," said Steven Oggel, the owner of Neimans.

On July 9, the parties hammered out a settlement in San Diego Superior Court. Six of the nightspots agreed to pay $20,000 each, and the seventh – Have A Nice Day Cafe – $5,000 because it was going out of business.

Michael B. Schaefer, a lawyer for the 5ifth Quarter, said his client "made a business decision" to pay the money "and move on with life."

According to their two lawyers, Rava and Surrey both live in the San Diego area. Their lawyers declined to make the men available for an interview.

Their lawyers, Jenkins and Randal Glaser, who are partners in a San Diego firm, said they have a similar lawsuit pending against a nightclub in Orange County.

They also noted that they're not the only ones filing these types of cases. Earlier this year, a group of San Diego lawyers reached a confidential settlement in a class-action suit accusing several dating services of gender discrimination for offering discounts to female customers.

Meanwhile, the word is now out in the Gaslamp Quarter: Giving cover-charge discounts to women might be good for business but it can land you in court. Several of the owners involved in the lawsuit said they've notified other establishments in the area, all of whom promptly canceled similar promotions.

Last Thursday night in the Gaslamp, it was difficult if not impossible to find a single person, man or woman, who had a philosophical problem with the concept of ladies night Night.

Kim Stafford, 25, a San Luis Obispo advertising executive who was hanging out on the patio of the Martini Ranch, was asked whether it was fair for a nightclub to charge men more than women to get in.

"Welcome to getting a haircut in America," she said. "You all pay $8. We pay $90."

Chris Williams, a Portland musician who was drinking a beer on the patio of Henry's Pub on Fifth Avenue, pointed out that he's been to gay bars where he's been given a cover-charge discount because he's a man.

"So I can't be offended the other way," he said.

Inside the Martini Ranch, Christy Dirkson and Debbie Murphy, who were sipping beverages at the bar, seemed perplexed at the idea that someone would file a lawsuit over something like this. Both work as cocktail waitresses at another establishment, and both agreed that there's one fail-safe way to get men into a bar – pack the bar with women.

"Men will always be in bars," Dirkson said. "Women need more incentive."

"Because women aren't as desperate as men are," her friend chimed in.

edit to correct apostrophe placement in title...

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[CrazyIvan 0]

WTF??!!

__________________________________________
Blue Skies and May the Force be with you.

[Rebecca 0]

Looks like the Gaslamp Quarter had better prepare itself for a whole lot of sausage-fests and not a whole lotta business...

People are clever when it comes to making money- they'll find a way around it...

Still, how freakin' whiney and litigous can you get? Do you men mind paying cover when you know the place is packin' in the hotties?

you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk?

[lawrocket 3]

Law! What a great Racket!

Sebazz for Governor!

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Guest]

"Because women aren't as desperate as men are," her friend chimed in.

That arrogant attitude alone is worth doing away with the perks, in my opinion.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[Rebecca 0]

Quote

"Because women aren't as desperate as men are," her friend chimed in.

That arrogant attitude alone is worth doing away with the perks, in my opinion.

Sorry Mark! You're right- that is a very arrogant thing to say. However, my original point still stands.

The plain truth of the matter is that when clubs let ladies in free, the ladies follow, and the guys follow them. It said so in the article, and I've been to plenty of clubs with and without specials to say with a fair amout of certainty that the ones with ladies' nights do MUCH better business.

It's not like we're being treated 'special'- we're basically shills when it comes down to it. Guys see women going in one club and not the one next to it, where are they gonna spend their money? It's business.

edit: 'cause I'm a jackass who didn't read to the very end of the story.

you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk?

[freeflyz 0]

Still, how freakin' whiney and litigous can you get? Do you men mind paying cover when you know the place is packin' in the hotties?

[Rebecca 0]

Quote

Lady's nights rock....I'll pay for the cover and the lady's drink fo sho!!!!

Uh huh- YOU know what I'm talkin' about! Come to Texas- everyone has a good time on ladies' night!

you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk?

[Steel 0]

This is a very interesting topic. I am not sure what my opinion is on the matter but that is strictly due to convienience. See the way I figure if I went to a club with a girl the fact that she might not have to pay a cover charge will save me money so I like that, The arguement about women having to pay more for a a haircut is a crock. They know very clearly that there hair requires much more time and attention. Meanwhile men will spend more money on liquor at the club (as long as we are not talking about me) so that goes against reasons for them paying more to get in. Now I am well aware of the true motives behind this and that is simply to attract men to the club by packing it with women, which is fine. I am all for making an environment at a club which appears pleansant to the average man that will spend the most money at the club. But hey we should not stop there. Lets allow the attractive women to get in for free, ugly ones pay full price, 18-25 males {you know the idiot troublemaker age} charge them 50% more, transvestites charge them full price, flaming homosexuals full price for the first 5 after the 5th one gets in, start charging them double, drugged up little punk send him down the street, tell him the club is full.

If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.

[freeflyz 0]

HUH?????

[Rebecca 0]

Quote

HUH?????

Let me repeat: HUH?????

you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk?

[tbrown 26]

A curse on these worthless bastards - may they never get laid again in their entire lives. Even hookers should tell them their money's no good. Worthless fucking smart ass lawyers, put 'em all on a rusty barge and tow it out to a Navy target range...

Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity !

[Guest]

Quote

Quote

Form your own conclusions.

That's exactly what I did.

Quote

"Because women aren't as desperate as men are," her friend chimed in.

That arrogant attitude alone is worth doing away with the perks, in my opinion.

Ahem. I wasn't being arrogant. The plain truth of the matter is that when clubs let ladies in free, the ladies follow, and the guys follow them. It said so in the article, and I've been to plenty of clubs with and without specials to say with a fair amout of certainty that the ones with ladies' nights do MUCH better business.

It's not like we're being treated 'special'- we're basically shills when it comes down to it. Guys see women going in one club and not the one next to it, where do you think they're gonna spend their money? It's business.

I really don't appreciate that snap judgement, Mark.

Not YOU, silly! The woman quoted in the story!

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[Rebecca 0]

Quote

A curse on these worthless bastards - may they never get laid again in their entire lives. Even hookers should tell them their money's no good. Worthless fucking smart ass lawyers, put 'em all on a rusty barge and tow it out to a Navy target range...

Am I to infer that you agree with the judgement and do not, in fact, find the plaintiffs whiney and litigous, and further, that you found my post to be in such vehement disageement with the case and its outcome that I wish the above-quoted fate on the plaintiffs and their lawyers?

Or were you being serious?

you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk?

[Rebecca 0]

OOOPS!!! My bad!! You replied to me, and I made the snap judgement. I'm so sorry!!

you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk?

[quade 4]

So, is this the end of the "Chicks Rock Boogie" as well?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Steel 0]

Quote

Quote

A curse on these worthless bastards - may they never get laid again in their entire lives. Even hookers should tell them their money's no good. Worthless fucking smart ass lawyers, put 'em all on a rusty barge and tow it out to a Navy target range...

Am I to infer that you agree with the judgement and do not, in fact, find the plaintiffs whiney and litigous, and further, that you found my post to be in such vehement disageement with the case and its outcome that I wish the above-quoted fate on the plaintiffs and their lawyers?

Or were you being serious?

---------------------------
I thought it was pretty clever in this age of stupid law suits. It was a guaranteed money maker since they were indeed breaking the law. But on a moral standpoint I am against law suits in general with the exception of a case where a law suit was truely jusitfied like innaccurate slander or an untrue statement leading to defamation of character.

If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

They have ruined it for all the guys in Cali...

I thought all men in California were gay anyway?